This case involved a bill in equity filed by John McLean, Duncan McLean, and William Harvey against co-guarantors on promissory notes issued by the Coffeen Coal and Copper Company, seeking contribution after they paid a remaining balance on the notes following foreclosure of a securing mortgage. The notes were signed by the company and certain directors, with all parties including the plaintiffs and deceased guarantors endorsing guarantees of payment; judgments had been entered against the company and some signers as makers. The circuit court granted contribution, the Appellate Court affirmed, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed that ruling in part, holding that the legal effect of the joint guaranties created an equitable presumption of equal contribution among solvent co-guarantors that was not rebutted by evidence of the signers' status as sureties on the face of the notes. The court reversed in part on a procedural issue, finding error in the decree's failure to award costs to dismissed administrator defendants as required by statute. The cause was remanded with directions to correct the costs allocation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Daugherty v. Heckard, appellees Heckard & Sons sued appellants H.D. Daugherty and Charles H. Martin in assumpsit to recover payment under a written contract for supplying paving bricks for a city project in Canton, Illinois, after appellants had contracted with the city. The trial court entered judgment for appellees in the amount of $9,113.72, which the Appellate Court affirmed, and the Illinois Supreme Court reviewed on further appeal. The court held that appellants were liable as partners under the contract, rejecting their verified pleas denying partnership and their claim that payment was conditioned on the city's delivery of valid bonds. The core reasoning was that the contract imposed an absolute obligation on appellants to pay for the bricks, with any risk from the city's nonpayment falling on appellants rather than appellees, and that jury instructions properly addressed the partnership and liability issues based on the evidence.

business & regulatory

The case centered on disputes among parties to agreements for acquiring land, constructing a building, and managing or selling the resulting property, including claims of an oral modification to divide sale proceeds equally, entitlement to $2500 in compensation for construction services, and conflicts in the parties' accounts. The court affirmed the lower decree, upholding the oral agreement as enforceable, the compensation amount as agreed, and the master's resolution of the accounts. It reasoned that the arrangement constituted a partnership, rendering the Statute of Frauds inapplicable to the real estate dealings, and that the evidence, including conduct treating the property as a single enterprise and specific testimony, supported equal division of proceeds after a $1000 payment to the appellant in lieu of other interests, along with the other findings.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory